Walker v. State
| Decision Date | 08 July 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. 74 Sept. Term 2012.,74 Sept. Term 2012. |
| Citation | 69 A.3d 1066,432 Md. 587 |
| Parties | Karl Marshall WALKER, Jr. v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Katherine P. Rasin, Assistant Public Defender (Paul B. DeWolfe, Public Defender, of Baltimore MD) for Petitioner.
Brenda Gruss, Assistant Attorney General (Douglas F. Gansler, Attorney General of Maryland, of Baltimore, MD) for respondent.
Argued before BELL,* C.J., HARRELL, BATTAGLIA, GREENE, ADKINS, BARBERA and McDONALD, JJ.
While working at a Howard County elementary school, Petitioner Karl Marshall Walker, Jr. gave to an eight-year-old female student a series of notes in which he repeatedly professed his love for her, shared fantasies of kissing and holding her, and expressed jealousy about her having a boyfriend. At the time he wrote these messages, Petitioner was 38 years old. Following a bench trial in the Circuit Court for Howard County, Petitioner was convicted of sexual abuse of a minor and attempted sexual abuse of a minor under Maryland Code (2002, 2012 Repl.Vol.), § 3–602 of the Criminal Law Article.1 Sexual abuse is defined at § 3–602(a)(4)(i) as “an act that involves sexual molestation or exploitation of a minor, whether physical injuries are sustained or not.” The Court of Special Appeals affirmed the convictions.Walker v. State, 206 Md.App. 13, 47 A.3d 590 (2012).
Petitioner does not deny that his behavior was highly inappropriate but he argues that his actions did not amount to a crime. He also argues that a search of a desk he used at the school violated his right under the Fourth Amendment to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. We granted a petition for a writ of certiorari, Walker v. State, 429 Md. 81, 54 A.3d 759 (2012), to answer the following questions:
1. Did the lower courts err in holding that Petitioner did not enjoy a reasonable expectation of privacy in his work desk for purposes of a Fourth Amendment challenge to a search of the desk?
2. Whether sexual abuse of a minor is committed by the exchange of non-sexually explicit letters and drawings?
For reasons we shall explain, we answer no to the first question and yes to the second. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals and uphold Petitioner's convictions.
A student teacher, while moving the children's desks in a third-grade classroom at a Howard County school on March 17, 2010, discovered an unusual note in the desk belonging to an eight-year-old female student, whom we shall refer to simply as C.2 The note appeared to be written to C from Petitioner, a paraeducator 3 for the school's special education program who was assigned to help certain students in that classroom. The student teacher testified at Petitioner's subsequent trial that the letter was inappropriate, disturbing, and “something that ... should not have been in a child's desk.” She immediately showed the note to the third-grade teacher, Ms. P, who testified that it was “alarming.”
The letter was addressed to “Steelergirl” and signed, below four heart symbols and four Xs, by “Raven–K.” The contents were as follows: 4
U won't see me after school 2day. I really miss u when we r away. I can never get any time wit u. U look so pretty n gorgeous 2day. Purple is my favorite color and u look so good in it. I had a dream that we went 2 Las Vegas on a plane. I was screaming loud and you said, “Stop being a bitch and man-up.” I said, “O.K.” I love when u r forceful and mad. We had fun holdin hands and hugging. We watched movies and went to a club to dance.
I loved the bear u made me. I hoped the MSA 5 went well. U r so smart and beautiful. U r right. I care about u so much. My heart aches when Im away from u. If anyone ANYONE hurts u, I would fuckin kill them.
Know that my [heart symbol] will always b-long 2 u. I do think about kissing u sometimes but I'd never do it if u didn't want 2. At least I can kiss your picture every night. I know this is a little strong but its how I feel bout you.
I hope u miss me as much as I miss u when we r away.
[Eye symbol] m n [heart symbol] with U always.
C testified that Petitioner called her Steelergirl in his letters and she referred to him as Raven–K because she was a fan of the Pittsburgh Steelers football team and he was a fan of the rival Baltimore Ravens team. Ms. P presented this letter, along with C's writing journal,6 to the school's principal, Mr. M, around 3:30 p.m. that day. Mr. M testified that he was immediately concerned by the letter, and he searched C's desk to see if there were other similar letters. After finding a second letter, Mr. M called the school district's central office and alerted police. A member of the Howard County Police Department arrived to take the letters and begin an investigation. Although Mr. M testified that he did not recognize the handwriting in the letters, he said that he suspected Petitioner was “Raven–K” because Petitioner's first name began with the letter K and he was known to be an enthusiastic Ravens supporter. Ms. P testified that she was familiar with Petitioner's handwriting because of his work with her students, and she identified all of the letters from Raven–K as having been written by Petitioner.
Mr. M called Petitioner that evening but Petitioner did not return the call until the next morning. Mr. M told Petitioner that, pending further investigation, he was not to come to the school. Petitioner asked what was happening and Mr. M told him he was not at liberty to discuss it. Petitioner did not come into the school that day and never asked to retrieve his belongings from his desk.
By the time the letter was discovered, Petitioner had been working at the school as a paraeducator for nearly three years. Petitioner was assigned to multiple classrooms where he worked with specific special education students who had defined disabilities; he also helped other students as the need arose. Additionally, he assisted with the dismissal of students at the end of the school day. Petitioner was assigned to work with several students in the third-grade class and spent about an hour per day in that classroom. School employees described Petitioner as having a problem with professional boundaries because he was “overly friendly” with many students at the school; he acted more like a friend than a teacher, gave students high-fives in the school hallways, or hugged them. Ms. P stated she counseled Petitioner that it was against school policy to give candy to students after she saw him give a candy bar to one girl but no one else. Petitioner talked to some students more than others, including C and her sister, and C often initiated hugs with Petitioner, according to Ms. P. C testified that Petitioner gave her candy and money, hugged her, and sometimes held her hand, although she stated that he also hugged other students at school. Petitioner and C would hug and exchange letters at the end of the school day by C's bus, and she would read the notes from him on the bus before putting them in her backpack.
The day after the letters were discovered, Howard County Police Detective Erica Heavner and a partner arrived at the school around 10 a.m. to talk with Mr. M. Mr. M signed a consent form giving police permission to search a desk that was used by Petitioner. Petitioner's desk was grouped together with those of other paraeducators in a pod located in a common area near several classrooms. Although employees can request a key to lock the desk drawers, Petitioner did not do so and his desk drawers were unlocked.7 The drawers on the right side of the desk were labeled, from top to bottom, “seminars, research data”; “student data”; and “learning,” and a thin drawer in the middle of the desk was marked “utensils + desk items.” The desk contained various drawings by students, a paraeducator voluntary transfer form, greeting cards, and a cardboard box marked “Christmas lights.” Det. Heavner opened the box and discovered numerous pieces of paper stuffed inside. She seized the box and, after obtaining a search warrant, discovered notes and drawings from Steelergirl to Raven–K inside.
C's parents received a call from the school about the first letter on the day it was discovered and met with detectives that same day. After learning about the letter, C's mother searched her daughter's backpack and discovered approximately 18 notes apparently written by Petitioner to C. She found 10 additional letters several weeks later and turned those over to police. The letters were all addressed to Steelergirl and the contents of the letters read as follows:
• The contents of this letter was written within a heart-shape. On the back of the paper is a drawing showing what appears to be a male stick figure holding hands with a female stick figure with a heart appearing above their hands that states “RK + SG.”
• On the back of the note, Petitioner wrote: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Myers v. State
...that the statute is constitutional.’ " Beattie v. State , 216 Md. App. 667, 678, 88 A.3d 906 (2014) (quoting Walker v. State , 432 Md. 587, 626, 69 A.3d 1066 (2013) ). The person challenging the statute "bears the burden of overcoming this presumption and establishing the statute's unconsti......
-
Raynor v. State
...officials at issue ... infringed an expectation of privacy that society is prepared to consider reasonable.’ ” Walker v. State, 432 Md. 587, 605, 69 A.3d 1066 (2013) (quoting O'Connor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709, 715, 107 S.Ct. 1492, 94 L.Ed.2d 714 (1987) (plurality opinion)). The test for asce......
-
Grimm v. State
...and to observe first-hand the demeanor and to assess the credibility of witnesses during their live testimony....” Walker v. State, 432 Md. 587, 614, 69 A.3d 1066, 1082 (2013) (quoting State v. Mayers, 417 Md. 449, 466, 10 A.3d 782, 791 (2010) ). A fact-finder “decides which evidence to acc......
-
Grimm v. State
...and to observe first-hand the demeanor and to assess the credibility of witnesses during their live testimony . . . ." Walker v. State, 432 Md. 587, 614, 69 A.3d 1066, 1082 (2013) (quoting State v. Mayers, 417 Md. 449, 466, 10 A.3d 782, 791 (2010)). A fact-finder "decides which evidence to ......